Loading ITAT cases…
7,156 tribunal orders from the Delhi bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 7,156 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material and relied on 'borrowed satisfaction'. Furthermore, the additions made on merits were deleted due to lack of evidence to prove the software purchases were bogus.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. These decisions established that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned or receivable by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following Supreme Court precedents. The penalty was not sustainable as the assessee had provided all material facts and the claim was based on an interpretation of law.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following Supreme Court precedents. The penalty was not sustainable as the assessee had provided all material facts and the claim was based on an interpretation of law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. It was held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned or receivable by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. These decisions established that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned or receivable by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing him to give the assessee one final opportunity to produce the lender and substantiate its creditworthiness. The AO was instructed to decide the issue based on facts and law.
The Tribunal held that since the working capital adjustment already accounted for the impact of outstanding receivables on profitability, further imputation of interest was unwarranted. It also noted that the taxpayer was debt-free and the proposed addition fell within the permissible range.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54 for instalments paid on or after one year prior to the date of sale of the original asset. The CIT(A)'s findings were modified accordingly.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following Supreme Court precedents. The penalty was not sustainable as the assessee had provided all material facts and the claim was based on an interpretation of law.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to establish the identity of share applicants and furnish evidence of their existence. The assessee also failed to appear before the appellate authorities.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that a distinction between core and non-core auto components is crucial for benchmarking international transactions. It found that the TPO and CIT(A) made a slipshod transfer pricing analysis and directed a fresh, open-ended analysis by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the average investment value was NIL. It also directed the deletion of the license fee disallowance, remanding it for decision based on High Court findings. For TDS on deferred revenue, the Tribunal directed proportionate credit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were bad in law as they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was invoked. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the business was set up when the assessee acquired the necessary infrastructure and entered into a business contract. Subsequent acquisitions and recruitment do not negate the business being set up.
The Tribunal held that the mere expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish a debt, and for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be an actual obtaining of a benefit by the assessee through remission or cessation of liability. Since the liability still existed, the addition was unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer in recording reasons and by the approving authorities in granting sanction. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 263 could not be sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the lender. The issue was whether these documents were sufficient to discharge the assessee's onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering that the assessee had filed a return and paid taxes. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT approval for incurring expenses outside India was granted, and the foreign contributions were not in violation of FCRA as they were transactions between the Governments of India and France. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B was not applicable as the assessee did not debit service tax to the Profit & Loss account or claim it as a deduction. It also held that Section 14A disallowance was not justified as there was no exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were genuine gifts from family members, even if deposited later and in installments. The Tribunal found no merit in the addition made by the AO and restricted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings for AY 2007-08 were void due to defective jurisdiction under Section 153C, as the notice was issued before the searched person's notice. For AY 2008-09, the assessment was quashed for not issuing a mandatory notice under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings for AY 2007-08 were void due to defective jurisdiction under Section 153C, as the notice was issued before the searched person's notice. For AY 2008-09, the assessment was quashed for not issuing a mandatory notice under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT approval for incurring expenses outside India was granted, and the foreign contributions were not in violation of FCRA as they were transactions between the Governments of India and France. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that since substantive additions for the same amount were confirmed in the hands of Shri Vaibhav Jain, there was no need to make a protective addition in the assessee's hands. The protective addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were bad in law as they did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was invoked. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that for a pure distributor reselling goods without value addition, RPM is the most appropriate method. The TPO erred in applying TNMM and making adjustments to the entire income instead of just international transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to foreign travel expenses, citing a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. Similarly, grounds concerning medical expenses were also dismissed based on the same precedent.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities. The assessee failed to establish the existence of the creditor and the genuineness of the transactions, and also failed to provide sufficient justification for the disallowed expenses.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot rely on the DVO's report without rejecting the assessee's books of account, which were not rejected. Furthermore, the difference between the assessee's declared cost and the DVO's valuation was less than 3%, considered a marginal variation.